CCARF Practice Question

Paper 5 · Question 23

D4 Prompt Engineering & Structured Output · Paper 5

[Scenario: Claude Code for Continuous Integration] Your automated code review averages 15 findings per pull request, and developers report a 40% false-positive rate. The bottleneck is investigation time: developers must click into each finding to read Claude’s rationale before deciding whether to fix or dismiss it. Your CLAUDE.md already contains comprehensive rules for acceptable patterns, and stakeholders rejected any approach that filters findings before developers see them. What change best addresses investigation time?

• A.Require Claude to include its rationale and confidence estimate directly in each finding.
• B.Add a post-processor that analyzes finding patterns and automatically suppresses those that match historical false-positive signatures.
• C.Categorize findings as “blocking issues” vs “suggestions,” with different review requirements by level.
• D.Configure Claude to show only high-confidence findings, filtering uncertain flags before developers see them.

Show answer & explanations

Correct answer: A

A: Including rationale and confidence directly in each finding reduces investigation time by letting developers quickly triage without opening each finding. It satisfies the “no filtering” constraint because all findings remain visible while accelerating developer decision-making.

B: Suppressing findings that look like past false positives is filtering, which stakeholders ruled out.

C: Splitting blocking issues from suggestions changes the process, not the time spent opening each finding to read why it was raised.

D: Hiding low-confidence findings is filtering. The constraint is that every finding stays visible.

Related Prompt Engineering & Structured Output questions

More: Paper 5 · All practice questions